Anti-Hazing Law
Spouses
Presence during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as a principal
unless he prevented the commission of the acts
of leading to the death of Bob. The Anti-Hazing
Law in creating this presumption does not
distinguish whether the person present is a
member of the fraternity or not. (R.A. No. 8049,
sec. 4, par. e)
What is the meaning of gross negligence
in the context of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019?
ANSWER: To be held liable under said section, the
act of the accused which caused undue injury
must have been done with evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. Gross negligence
has been defined as negligence characterized by
the want of even slight care acting or omitting to
act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far
as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and
thoughtless men never fail to take on their
property. (Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400)In
case of public officials, there is gross negligence
when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.
(QUIBAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 244 SCRA 224)
Seduction & Consented Abduction
Virginity in qualified seduction does not require
physical virginity (virgo intacta) or as the term is
understood in medical science. The legal view is
that qualified seduction only requires virginity in
law, i.e., that the victim has no other voluntary
carnal relations with another man. Likewise,
virginity in consented abduction is not to be
understood in its material sense, as to exclude a
virtuous woman of good reputation, since the
essence of the crime of abduction is not injury to
the woman but the outrage and alarm to her
family.
Physical Injuries
By deformity is meant physical ugliness,
permanent and definite abnormality. It must be
conspicuous and visible. The injury contemplated
is an injury that cannot be repaired by the action
of nature. The fact that the injured party may
have artificial teeth, if he has the necessary
means and so desires, does not repair the injury,
although it may lessen the disfigurement.
May the crime of illegal sale of drugs be
consummated without the exchange of the
marked money?
Garcia vs. Drilon (2013) - perfect penetration is not essential. Any
There is likewise no merit to the
contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the husband
or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC
may likewise be committed "against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the
gender-neutral word "person" who has or had a
sexual or dating relationship with the woman
encompasses even lesbian relationships.
Moreover, while the law provides that the
offender be related or connected to the victim by
marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application
of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).
Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v.
Tan,94 the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-
Tan, the victim, were held to be proper
respondents in the case filed by the latter upon
the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's
husband) had community of design and purpose
in tormenting her by giving her insufficient
financial support; harassing and pressuring her to
be ejected from the family home; and in
repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally,
mentally and physically.
MALVERSATION
It is settled that good faith is a valid
defense in the prosecution of malversation for it
would negate criminal ntent on the part of the
accused. To constitute a crime, the act must,
except in certain crimes made such by statute, be
accompanied by criminal intent, or by such
negligence or indifference to duty or to
consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal
intent.
The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens
sit reaa crime is not committed if the mind of
the person performing the act complained of is
innocent. (TABUENA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R.
Nos. 103501-03. February 17,1997)
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
Acts of endorsing of checks by way of
identification of the signatures of the payees
entitled to said checks and their proceeds
constitute the crime of estafa through falsification
of mercantile document by reckless imprudence
because such endorsement constituted a written
representation that the payees participated in the
indorsement and cashing of the checks, when in
truth and in fact the true payees had no direct
intervention in the proceedings. In the crime of
falsification by imprudence of public or
ercantilezdocuments the element of intent to
cause damage is not required because what the
law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the public
confidence in these documents. (SAMSON vs. CA,
et al. Nos. L-10364 and L-10376. March 31.1958)
RAPE
There is no such crime as frustrated rape.
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment
the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim,
he actually attains his purpose and from that
moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is
left to be done by the offender, because he has
performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. The
uniform rule is that for the consummation of rape,
penetration of the female organ by the male
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or the lips of
the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. (PEOPLE vs. QUIANOLA, G.R. No.
126148, May 5, 1999)
Absence of injuries doe not negate the
commission of rape. It is true that, although
complainant testified that appellant boxed her on
the stomach, the medical report did not indicate
any abrasion, hematoma or bruise on that part of
her anatomy. This is of no consequence. Medical
authorities agree that when force is applied on
the stomach, no marks may be detected. Injuries
may have been caused in the internal organs, but
external signs are not always visible. The absence
of injuries, however, does not negate the
commission of rape. (PEOPLE vs. JOYA, G.R. No.
79090.
October 1, 1993)
It should be underscored that the
presence or absence of spermatozoa in the
vagina is not determinative of the commission of
rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non
for the successful prosecution of a rape case.
Thus, the lack of spermatozoa in the victims
body does not negate the crime of rape. The
important element in rape is penetration of the
pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.
(PEOPLE vs. BONDOY, G.R. No. 79089. May 18,
1993)
ROBBERY
When robbery is committed by three (3)
persons in conspiracy and not by a band, that is
more than three (3) armed malefactors taking
part in the commission of the crime, only the
offender committing rape shall be liable for the
special complex crime of robbery with rape.
(PEOPLE vs. MORENO, G.R. No. 92049, March 22,
1993)
It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s
should be considered as aggravating
circumstances. The enumeration of aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal
Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration
in Art. 13 of the same code regarding mitigating
circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph (par 10) providing for analogous
circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes
(or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the
occasion of robbery) would result in an analogous
situation where from the standpoint of the gravity
of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on
the same level as robbery with multiple rapes.
However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within
its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute. In view of the foregoing, the additional
rape committed by herein accused-appellant
should not be considered as aggravating. The
proper penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by
the trial court is proper. (PEOPLE vs. REGALA,
G.R. No. 130508. April 5,
2000)
In robbery with homicide cases, the
prosecution need only to prove these elements:
(a) the taking of personal property with violence
or intimidation against persons;
(b) that the property taken belongs toanother;
(c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi; and
(d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) was
committed.
These elements were present when
accused-appellants, acting in unison, demanded
money from her
mother, forcibly took tha same against her will
and then hacked here to death. (PEOPLE vs.
CABILES, G.R. No.113785. September 14, 1995)
It has been repeatedly held that when
direct and intimate connection exists between the
robbery and the killing, regardless of which the
two precedes the other, or whether they are
committed at the same time, the crime
committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with
homicide. It is a settled doctrine that when death
supervenes by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of
death was by mere accident. What is important
and decisive is that death results by reason or on
occasion of the robbery. The death of robbery
victim by accident can, however, be considered
as a mitigating circumstance. If the
circumstances would indicate no intention to kill,
as in the instant case where evidently, the
intention is to prevent the deceased from making
an outcry, and so a pandesal was stuffed into
her mouth, the mitigating circumstance of not
having intended to commit so grave may be
appreciated. The stuffing of the pandesal in the
mouth would not have produced asphyxiation had
it not slid into the neckline, caused by the
victims own movements. (PEOPLE vs. OPERO,
No. L- 48796. June 11, 1981)
KIDNAPPING WITH SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
The essence of kidnapping or serious
illegal detention is the actual confinement or
restraint of the victim or the deprivation of his
liberty. There is no kidnapping with murder , but
only murder where a 3-year old child was gagged,
hidden in a box where it did and ransom asked.
The demand for ransom did not convert the
offense in to kidnapping with murder. The
defendant was well aware that the child would be
suffocated to death in a few moments after she
left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the
diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the
child, to
conceal his body and then demand money before
the discovery of the cadaver. (PEOPLE vs. LORA,
G.R. No.49430. March 30, 1982)
DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
There is no question that the accused surprised
his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case,
in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which,
he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of a
passionate outburst. Art. 247 prescribes the
following elements:
(1) that a legally married person surprises his
spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and
(2) that he kills any of them or both of them in
the act or immediately thereafter. These
elements are present in the case.
Though about one hour, had passed
between the time the accused-appellant
discovered his wife having sexual intercourse
with the victim and the time the latter was
actually shot, the shooting must be understood to
be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by
the accused appellant.
The RPC, in requiring that the accused
shall kill any of them or both of them
immediately after surprising his spouse in the
act of sexual intercourse, does not say that he
should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It
only requires that the death caused be the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the
basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have
been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by
external factors. The killing must be the direct
byproduct of the accuseds rage. (PEOPLE vs.
ABARCA. L-74433. September 14,1987)

CARNAPPING
Considering the phraseology of amended Section
14 of R.A. No. 6539, the carnapping and the
killing (or the rape) may be considered a single or
indivisible or a special complex crime which,
however, is not covered by Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. As such, the killing (or the
rape)merely qualifies the crime of carnapping
whick for lack of specific nomenclature may be
known as qualified carnapping or carnapping in
an aggravated form.
Since Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 uses the
words IS KILLED, no distinction must be made
between homicide and murder. Whether it is one
or the other which is committed in the course of
carnapping or on the occasion thereof makes no
difference insofar as the penalty is concerned. It
follows then that the killing of the driver, whether
it be homicide or murdercannot be treated as a
separate offense, but should only be considered
to qualify the crime of carnapping.
On the otherhand, if attempted or
frustrated murder or homicide is committed in
the course of the commission of the carnapping
or on the occasion thereof, then it must be
deemed to fall under the clause (of Section 14)
when the carnapping is committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person.
(PEOPLE vs. MEJIA. G.R. Nos.118940-41 and G.R.
No.119407. July 7, 1997)

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

To sustain a conviction for selling
prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and
unmistakably established. To sell means to give,
whether for money or any other material
consideration. It must, therefore, be established
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant actually
sold and delivered two tea bags of marijuana
dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the
poseurbuyer, in exchange for twenty-peso bills.
(PEOPLE vs. SIMON. G.R. No.93028. July 29,1994.)